don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

As a working adult, Nevada was the first right-to-work state I ever lived in and I have to say I see no difference.

Get this, Nevada voters in the 1950's passed right-to-work laws by popular vote so I am not buying the whole "this will destroy our middle class lives" junk when we had a popular majority IN THE 1960's vote it into law.

Check it:

""I’m happy to report that the voters again passed the right-to-work ballot question—by some 1,000 votes—and in November 1952 Nevada’s right-to-work became a reality."The unions didn’t take this sitting down. They fought back all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The law went into effect in 1953."

During the 1950s, the unions tried on four different occasions to raise enough signatures on petitions to overturn the law. On three of those tries they successfully got their position on the ballot, but each time voters rejected it."

Also, Nevada's unionized labor peaked in 1996 at around 21%, so it still was able to grow, but now its shrinking because unions are not good.

I get embarrassed every time I have to see a UAW employee pictured in the newspaper, they look like slobs.
________________________________

I'm so glad that the UAW was there to fight for these people that Chrysler "took a dump on". Without the UAW, these honest, hardworking individuals would be without a job. It's clear to me that the union fights against unfair atrocities like the firing of these men.
------------------------------

You can have an opinion, just be prepared to be relentlessly mocked for it.

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?
-------------------------------------------Bad decisions make good stories.

I'm so glad that the UAW was there to fight for these people that Chrysler "took a dump on". Without the UAW, these honest, hardworking individuals would be without a job. It's clear to me that the union fights against unfair atrocities like the firing of these men.

Well could you imagine having to screw an Avenger together? I would drink also
________________________________

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

Ok, so the employer should offer union benefits and non-union benefits. Watch what will happen.
________________________________

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

Zoomin:Ok, so the employer should offer union benefits and non-union benefits. Watch what will happen.

Exactly. Why should people get a free ride on the backs of those who paid for representation?
-------------------------------------------Bad decisions make good stories.

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

Zoomin:Ok, so the employer should offer union benefits and non-union benefits. Watch what will happen.

don9992:Exactly. Why should people get a free ride on the backs of those who paid for representation?

What I am saying is I would be willing to bet that the employer would offer better pay, and benefits to the non-union employees
________________________________

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

Zoomin:Ok, so the employer should offer union benefits and non-union benefits. Watch what will happen.

don9992:Exactly. Why should people get a free ride on the backs of those who paid for representation?

Zoomin:What I am saying is I would be willing to bet that the employer would offer better pay, and benefits to the non-union employees

Only until he'd killed the union.
-------------------------------------------Bad decisions make good stories.

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

Zoomin:Ok, so the employer should offer union benefits and non-union benefits. Watch what will happen.

don9992:Exactly. Why should people get a free ride on the backs of those who paid for representation?

Zoomin:What I am saying is I would be willing to bet that the employer would offer better pay, and benefits to the non-union employees

don9992:Only until he'd killed the union.

And at which time if they changed that, people can organize to form a union again. Michigan residents still retain that right.

Fact is Union's are from a pre global economy, heck you bought a Ford Fusion built in Mexico, which clearly circumvents good ol' boy union built support right?
________________________________

I've never had union representation and yet I have never been forced to work 12 hour days, nor have I been under-compensated for my work, nor have I had unsafe working conditions, I always was compensated for overtime in any non-salary position I ever had. I never felt my employer was out to screw me and have always been able to negotiate fair compensation on my own behalf. The union hyperbole doesn't stand up to reality.

I think whats really going on is the old hat, relatively low skilled work performed by many unionized workers is getting displaced by more automation, new technologies, and higher skilled and technical jobs. Demand for skilled workers drives good wages and benefits, no union required. Instead of evolving and providing better value to their workers and partners, unions are sitting around pretending it's the early 1900's and they're all victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and Uncle Pennybags.

don9992:Now Michigan has given its corporations a legal right to take a dump all over their employees. Swell.

THE_atvman:Easily one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on the issue.

Nobody is taking away the right to unionize or the union's power to negotiate, I don't know where people are getting these ideas from. The biggest thing this bill accomplishes is giving the right of choice to the people. It makes unions more accountable to its members, period. Now, unions have to be more reasonable with their dues and have to put that money towards causes that members actually support instead of their own pet projects and political agendas. It takes the power out of the union's hands and back into the hands of the members.

The only way this hurts the unions is if people decide to drop out, in which case it'll be the people deciding they no longer want the union.

don9992:Unless the legislation is accompanied by requirements that union-negotiated pay levels and benefits are withheld from those who don't pay dues then all that's been accomplished is to cut the unions off at the knees and leave workers at the mercy of the suits who own the companies. That's always been the goal of the Republican party anyway.

DetroitMan:If non-union workers get lesser benefits and pay than their union coworkers, won't that drive them to join the union?

don9992:Ummm...yeah. That would make sense and that's exactly why the Republicans would never want that to happen.

The bad joke in all of this is the whole "right-to-work" label as if it's extending some right or protection to workers. It's there strictly to bust unions and allow employers to screw over workers. It serves no other purpose. It's simply another part of the Republican war on the middle class.

DetroitMan:So you would be fine if your job required you to join an organization, pay a portion of your wages to that organization, and that organization used a lot of that money to fund political campaigns?

don9992:If I'm going to take advantage of the benefits that that organization had gotten me, then I should be obliged to support it. If not, I should have to cut my own deal for pay and benefits. Why is that hard to understand?

How far back can that claim reasonably be taken? There is no arguing that unions improved the lot of workers - in the early to mid 20th Century. When unions began, there was no OSHA, no federal or state laws regarding hours, overtime, safety, etc. Every worker now has those protections under state and federal laws. Should I be obliged to pay a third party for protections already given to me by the law, just because that third party won those protections decades ago?

Unions have tried and failed many times to organize workers in southern states. In the auto industry, foreign automakers located in the south have offered good wages and benefits. The employees vote the union down or refuse to sign cards because they don't see an advantage. If you look at the raw numbers, UAW workers make more than their counterparts at foreign automakers in the south. However, when you adjust for northern states' higher cost of living and union dues, the advantage almost disappears. These workers have been happy to cut their own deals and aren't suffering for it. The fact is there is a market rate for labor, and good wages attract good workers. If workers think union representation will get them better wages, they are still free to organize.

About 12% of workers nationwide are part of a union. Yet we have people like Don saying this type of legislation allows employers to "dump all over their employees"I'm tired of hearing this argument, which is essentially saying only union employees are taking home a decent pay and benefits package while the rest of us are getting dumped on? That's just crazy talk.

Make yourself valuable to an employer and they will do what they need to do tokeep you around. If they don't you're off to greener pastures.